We are living through a period of rising division, declining trust in democratic institutions and growing attacks on marginalised communities. These challenges reinforce one another and, increasingly, are being deliberately exploited by those, both nationally and internationally, who benefit from a weaker, more divided Britain.
A galvanised far right, political extremists, authoritarian states, and transnational hate networks exploit grievance, manipulate difference, and erode trust in pursuit of power. From Southport to Belfast, international disruptors and armies of anonymous Russian bots stoke violence and fear on our streets. Enabled by a disrupted information environment and rapid technological change, these dynamics allow division, disinformation, and hostility to spread faster and further than ever before.
As experts in identity-based violence, it is our core responsibility at Protection Approaches to raise warning of what is coming, work with communities at risk to prepare for worse to come, and advance the solutions that are needed to turn the tide towards an inclusive, safe, fair and democratic future. We judge the UK to be approaching a significant juncture where decisions made over the next two years hold potential to confront and overcome serious threats to our imperfect yet precious way of life.
The implications for philanthropy are profound. If we get this wrong, the consequences will reach far beyond hate crime or community cohesion. We are already seeing rights and protections that many assumed were settled becoming the subject of mainstream political challenge. Human rights protections, the rights of refugees and migrants, LGBTQ+ equality and long-established commitments to anti-discrimination and inclusion are all under growing, sincere pressure. Progress on children’s rights, women’s rights, reproductive rights, health, climate action, academic research are all targets in a coordinated playbook that has moved from the margins to the mainstream.
Democratic society only functions when the contract between citizen and state, and the bonds of community, are upheld. That doesn’t mean everyone agrees with each other, but it does require reciprocal trust, agency, and participation. If these connections and bonds continue to breakdown, our country and communities will not only face rapidly intensifying social fracture and identity-based violence, but we will find ourselves frayed and vulnerable as the global trends of authoritarianism, resource shortages, massive population movements, and technological revolution continue to hit us harder.
During the session I was involved with at the Festival, I heard a compelling case for building power within marginalised communities. I agree wholeheartedly. Hearing colleagues from Systemic Justice describe their work partnering with communities fighting for racial, social and economic justice through strategic litigation, and from the Civic Power Fund about investing in grassroots organising to strengthen civic power among communities too often excluded from democracy and decision-making, reinforced how essential this work is.
Building power, leadership and agency within communities that have experienced centuries of racism, discrimination and structural injustice is not simply a means of preventing future harm. It is a matter of justice in its own right, and it deserves significantly greater investment.
But prevention also requires us to reduce the conditions that make hatred persuasive.
Many people drawn towards anti-migrant, anti-Muslim or anti-rights narratives are themselves living with deprivation, insecurity and a profound lack of agency. They feel ignored by politics, disconnected from decision-making and pessimistic about their future. Those experiences are real. The explanation they are increasingly offered, that migrants, minorities or other marginalised communities are responsible, is false.
This isn’t about legitimising prejudice. It is about ensuring that communities where grievance is being weaponised are not abandoned to those seeking to exploit it. It is also about recognising those we are up against – powerful propaganda machines of foreign states, cynical billionaires who own the platforms of public online communication and information, and a far-right project that is growing in the face of apolitical inaction.
So what does this mean for funders?
It means recognising that alongside building power within marginalised communities, we need to build agency, opportunity, trusted leadership, democratic participation and belonging in all communities where those things are absent.
It means treating community and democratic resilience as a cross-cutting priority, not a specialist funding stream. Whatever your mission, ask what would make the communities you work with more connected, more powerful and better able to withstand attempts to divide them.
It means moving beyond incrementalism. We need long-term, place-based investment in the social foundations that prevent division: trusted community organisations, local leadership, civic participation, opportunities for people to exercise agency, and spaces and institutions through which people can solve problems together. Prevention rarely looks dramatic. Failure does.
It means reversing decades of philanthropic divestment from advocacy and political engagement that has stripped progressive civil society and social movements of the political agility and confidence needed to create the space for and offer alternatives to government policy. Anti-democratic mobilisation, meanwhile, has done the opposite. As extremist, exclusionary and violent politics become increasingly mainstreamed into our democratic processes, conversations and decisions are required that will be uncomfortable for some – and will upset others – regarding the political decisions of what it is we are seeking to defend.
It means funding the infrastructure around that work too. We need advocacy, research, experimentation and creative problem-solving capable of developing responses to threats that are changing quickly. We need stronger networks connecting organisations across places and communities. And we need preparedness and protection so that civil society and grassroots organisations are able to operate safely if authoritarian and far-right threats continue to grow.
It also means more collaboration between funders. The scale of the challenge should make us think seriously about pooled funds, aligned strategies and shared infrastructure rather than expecting individual organisations and grants to solve systemic problems.
And perhaps we should think bigger still. Our public polling found that 52% of the public think strengthening community cohesion should be a high priority. 37% per cent said they would be willing to give money to support this work, but only 20% said they would know how.
What would it look like to unlock that appetite? Could philanthropy create a national fund through which the public, foundations and businesses invest together in stronger communities? Could we build the infrastructure that enables every school, faith group, employer, community organisation and local institution to understand the role they can play in strengthening our social fabric and pushing back against division?
In the Festival finale, Erel Onojobi from Power to Prosper challenged funders to be bold and brave and act with urgency. I couldn’t agree more. Funders have the power to release more money if they choose to. They can move more quickly. Not every response requires years of consultation before we begin.
This is an inflection point. If powerful actors are investing enormous effort and resources into dividing our communities and weakening our democracy, philanthropy should invest with equal ambition in strengthening them.